Disqus - Friends of danhughes

Re: Debunking Christianity: A Dialog With A Good Christian Friend

Jag_Levak — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 04:07:12 -0000

So Keith,
If you were an atheist; and if, as you say, atheists are illogical; does that mean you used illogic when arguing against Christians? Did you do all this arguing without any knowledge of what was contained in the Gospels? If you were once rational, did you have to let go of the "idol of reason" (as you put it) in order to come to God? If you had to abandon reason, then does your case really have anything to offer as encouragement to Joanie? If you did not have to abandon reason, then can you remember the steps you took which rationally led from atheism to Christianity? Because I've heard a lot of ex-atheist stories, and that one critical part of the story, the very path from reason to God, always seems to be missing for some reason.

Re: Debunking Christianity: A Dialog With A Good Christian Friend

Jag_Levak — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:04:22 -0000

Re: "Christians do not claim to be perfect, just forgiven" Presumably, asking for forgiveness is a petition to God (or one of the Christian sub-gods) in much the same way other prayers ask for other things. So do prayers to God have any detectable effect? How many millions of prayers have been offered up in Las Vegas? And yet the gaming industry can accurately project odds of winning out to several decimal places precision. If miracles happen, they appear to happen only in places other than where there is scrutiny combined with mathematical rigor. Even if it is granted that some prayers, like some wishes, do come true, there have been tens of thousands of doctrinally distinct varieties of Christianity, ranging from Christian Scientists to Gnostics, Mormons to Cathars, Quakers to Rastafarians, and beyond. Were the faithful of all those factions automatically saved, or have there been millions of Christians who thought they were saved, but actually were not? It seems there should be particular cause for worry among believers in Satan--a putatively cunning deceiver with the powers of a god, bent on tricking as many as possible away from the narrow path to salvation. Most Satan believers think that Satan has succeeded in deluding other Christians who mistakenly think they are saved, but they always seem to exempt themselves from any possibility of error regarding their own salvation. What is certain from the vigorous disagreements between Christians is that all of them consider others of them to be wrong, and at a minimum, the overwhelming majority of them must be wrong. What has yet to be established is that any of them are right.

Re: Debunking Christianity: A Dialog With A Good Christian Friend

Jag_Levak — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 20:47:25 -0000

[Keith wrote]: I was consumed with the question of meaning in life. It seemed as though the human race was here by chance and that everything was meaningless.

Considerations of meaning are necessarily anchored in sentience. To mean something is to operate as a placeholder signifying something other than the thing itself. But nothing can be signified without a receptor mind. My view is that absolutely nothing in the universe matters, or has meaning, or purpose, or significance, except where, and only to the degree that, some mind somewhere thinks it does. The addition of a cosmic mind does nothing to change that.

[>K] Life was a cruel joke that had been played on humanity by the universe

The universe does not care about humanity, and somehow, I see nothing cruel in the fact that I have had the opportunity to exist. I quite appreciate being alive, and the fact I will someday cease to exist serves only to intensify that appreciation.

]>K]: If Jesus was a fraud Messiah then why would most of the apostles have gone on to be martyred for proclaiming that Jesus was the risen son of God?

First, you are assuming the Bible stories to that effect are true, when you don't even know who wrote those stories. Second, a willingness to die for a belief is not nearly enough to establish that the belief is true. Were the beliefs of the Heaven's Gate cult proved true by their willing deaths?

[>K]: If the early church believed that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead then it would have made sense for them to give up on him, but they didn’t.

That argument assumes that Christians would only do that which makes sense. That has not been my experience. And in your haste to get to the resurrection part, you appear to have skipped over the bit where you established there ever was an actual Jesus Christ.

[>K]: If there is no God and we are here randomly then life is completely meaningless.

Except in every case where there is a mind which feels otherwise.

[>K]: All our work and all our memories will be destroyed—in time it will be like we never existed.

And if you go back in time, you will arrive at a period where we did not exist yet. What does either of those have to do with the lives we are living now?

[>K]: in a world with no God it doesn’t matter what you believe.

It might not matter to a god, but there are countless other ways that human beliefs matter.

[>K]: In a world with a God theists would be right about God and have the opportunity to live for all eternity with God in perfect bliss.

So if it is perfect, does it ever change? Do you ever change? After a billion centuries, will you still be the same person? If you always stay the same, what, really, is the point of an eternal existence? After you've endured sameness for a span of time trillions of orders of magnitude greater than the age of the Earth, will it still be fun? And if you change over time, what is to keep you from morphing into some sort of being which is unrecognizable as you? If some utterly different future being has your memories, is that all that's needed to qualify as you?

[>K]: The theist would have lived a meaningful life

Yeah? What meaning is that? Serve God, worship God, get others to do likewise? What's the point of that? Does your god need or crave worship from beings which are less than microbes by comparison? Is the meaning we give ourselves worthless because it does not come from above? If so, is your god similarly bereft of meaning?

[>K]: Atheists and agnostics would be wrong about God and according to the Bible be at risk of facing eternal punishment.

And what is the purpose of this unlimited punishment? Does mere unbelief injure your god, or harm it in any way? If yes, it would appear you worship a feeble god. If no, then unlimited punishment seems a rather insane level of retribution. Does your god crave inflicting punishment, or is he simply unable to stop himself?

[>K]: So, if God exists it is infinitely good to make the leap of faith and infinitely bad not to.

Pascal's Wager? Really? How could you have been an ardent atheist and never have dispatched this little brown gem of last resort yourself? PW is a game-theory argument for the advantage of Christian belief, not for the truth of Christian belief. But it only works if you set up the game as a strict dichotomy between Christianity and unbelief. But the proliferation of competing religions means that choosing any one will necessarily entail the rejection of all the others, in which case you risk all their punishments for choosing incorrectly. It's a stupid exercise anyway. If I clap a gun to your head and command to you believe Tinkerbell is real, will that provide you with sufficient motivation to truly believe that Tinkerbell is real?

[>K]: The bottom line is that I’m glad that I was able to make the leap,

If the line of reasoning that led to God had no gaps, leaping would be unnecessary.

Re: Debunking Christianity: A Dialog With A Good Christian Friend

Jag_Levak — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:48:22 -0000

I only steal from the best. (Which is why some of your material will be going into my keepers file.) :)

Re: Debunking Christianity: A Dialog With A Good Christian Friend

Jag_Levak — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:47:41 -0000

Wow. 700 pages is a truly impressive amount of padding. If you compiled all the independent contemporary evidence we have from Jesus's claimed time on Earth, you would have, well, nothing. Zilch. Nada. We supposedly had an actual god on this planet, leading throngs, rocking the crowds, alarming the priests and authorities, with fame that spilled over into other nations, and somehow, we can't find a single note about this guy from any historian, scribe, cleric, recordkeeper, fan, or detractor from that period, and certainly nothing whatsoever from the god himself. Even if you expand the timeframe to up to a century after the alleged time of Jesus, you can barely scrape together three paragraphs of unreferenced hearsay which almost certainly includes some quantity of forgery, and in no case exceeds the similar documentation we have for the similarly mythical Hercules. The entire case for Jesus resides within the Bible collection of stories and legends, compiled many years after his alleged life by persons unknown. Out in the real world, he appears to have been a complete cipher in his day, and he left behind not the faintest scratch of evidence he was ever here. I think if I were a cosmic god visiting a microscopic planet, I could have made more of an impression than that.

Re: Debunking Christianity: A Dialog With A Good Christian Friend

Jag_Levak — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 02:08:33 -0000

[Edit: this was in response to the post by Jasonmartin99 but for some reason it didn't show up as such]
I have many points of disagreement with Joanie, (and really, wouldn't this place be less interesting without disagreement?), but I was once on the other side of the fence, so I think I can understand where she's coming from. And in that light, I've not seen anything in the spirit of her posts which I would consider offensive or something she needs to apologize for. I think she is trying to do good, as she understands it, and I think John's actions in posting her letter here, even if not by name, should properly be considered on a par with an invitation for her to be here. I would also more consider her misinformed than uninformed. She has clearly assimilated much information from sources she trusts, and it's not too surprising that those same sources have inoculated her against contrary information which would tend to discredit them.

Furthermore, even if she watches the recommended video, the lecture itself includes the lessons that, 1) science is an evolutionary process which has included mistakes, 2) there is a great deal that we still do not know, and things we think must exist which we have not been able to find, and 3) there were and will be circumstances whereby the best observational science would be forced to arrive at an incorrect picture--which implicitly leaves open the possibility that we are in such a circumstance ourselves. Indeed, despite the many anti-religious jests, the only real anti-religious message of that lecture is that our current model of the Big Bang doesn't *require* a god to kick things off (as previous versions seemed to). But neither does it preclude it. So even if one found the Bang model convincing (which I don't) that wouldn't pose any real obstacle to God belief.

I don't know what John's intent was in setting up this blog, but I would hope a major goal was to provide a de-indoctrination resource, to expose Christians to questions and ideas which they would never hear from their clergy. I would hope this is the sort of place where any Christian willing to engage sincerely is welcome with open arms. Whether it is or not, I, for one, salute Joanie for coming here. I think at least part of her motivation was concern for fellow humans which she believed to be in peril, and she had to have known that she might be placing some of her own cherished and comforting beliefs at risk by doing so. That makes her a better person than I was as a Christian. Back then, I would have just said, To hell with them. Let 'em burn.

Re: Debunking Christianity: A Dialog With A Good Christian Friend

Jag_Levak — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 02:39:13 -0000

Hi Joanie,
If your point was that our very system of timekeeping could have religious roots, I would readily agree.

Happy Woden's day. :)

Re: Debunking Christianity: A Dialog With A Good Christian Friend

Jag_Levak — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 20:44:11 -0000

[Keith wrote]: The Roman historian Tacitus wrote about the suffering of the Christians and their explosion of activity following Jesus’ crucifixion

Setting aside the fact that we can't find this passage or any reference to it prior to the 11th century, and without delving into the curious matter of why no early Christian writer seems to have thought the passage was interesting enough to mention or comment on, even the most uncritical acceptance of this passage as entirely authentic only places it as far back as the second century. At best, Tacitus could only have been recording what he heard from unknown sources.

[>K]: Josephus wrote:
[snip Testimonium Flavianum]

Again, the earliest reference we can find to this passage is fourth century. We can find no mention of the TF in the works of Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Methodius, or Lactantius, though all had familiarity with the works of Josephus. There is broad acceptance that the TF is corrupted or completely forged, but even if there is some kernel that is not a fake, it would date to about 60 years after the supposed time of Jesus, and so, again, would have had to have been derived from sources unknown. And since Josephus similarly recounts some particulars of Hercules, it appears inclusion in the works of Josephus is no guarantee of actuality.

[>K]: If this was some conspiracy by the disciples then why would Peter have been willing to be crucified for his testimony? If Peter had made up Jesus like Shakespeare made up Hamlet then we would expect that prior to being crucified Peter would recant his story.

Is there any account of that from a non-Christian contemporary? And making Jesus up is not the only alternative. It could have been that early Jesus belief centered on a non-corporeal figure which was later placed into a historical setting. Dying for a belief in a non-corporeal figure is nothing remarkable for humans.

[>K] If Jesus’ disciples were convinced that Jesus didn’t really rise from the dead then we should expect that they would give up their hopes in him. ... The fact that they endured beatings, torture and execution lends huge credibility to the Bible’s assertion that Jesus rose from the dead and that he is the son of God.

And those stories which lend credibility to the Bible are found... where?

[>K]: The majority of Bible critics believe in the historicity of Jesus.

Are they all voting for the Jesus as described in the Bible, or are some of them saying a human Jesus with some biographical similarities would be close enough to count? And is majority opinion always right?

Basically, it sounds like you've got zip in the way of any record, document, or notation from the supposed life of Christ, even at the height of his far-flung fame. What about sacred artifacts? Was there no preservation and veneration of any relic from his alleged life?

To recap, what's being proposed is that a god flung trillions of galaxies into existence, then billions of years later, visited our blue speck and became one of his favorite smelly primates for a while, lived in obscurity for most of his life, kicked up a big sensation at the end, and got himself nailed to a post and went away, so that he could come back again, so that he could go away again (with a promise to come back again), and he left behind nothing but rumors, legends, and stories that he was ever here. And these were later compiled into a book which contains some obviously false information, and which appears no different in kind from the storybooks of other religions and mythologies.

Are you surprised that anyone could be skeptical of that?

Re: Debunking Christianity: A Dialog With A Good Christian Friend

Jag_Levak — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 03:00:18 -0000

Hi Joanie,
Yes, I'm repeating what I've heard from multiple, seemingly authoritative sources that we have found no reference to the Biblical Jesus which date from the time he supposedly lived. And yes, repeating what I've heard would not make any such record go away if it existed, but I've been saying that for several years now, and no-one has ever cited a single exception to that claim, which is all that it would take to demolish it. And granted, there are Christian writings which date to decades after the events they describe, so that is evidence of a sort, but it is evidence which is greatly weakened by the profound lack of notice paid at the time to the amazing, rabble-rousing, miracle worker the later stories describe. Without the independent corroboration, what we are left with is another set of unconfirmed miracle stories, and we know from other religions, legends, and mythologies that humans can produce those in abundance.

And well done on your brief summary of Biblical cosmology. I remember most of it, but it looks so lunatic batty to me now that I can't remember what it was like to take it seriously. One part I don't remember: You mention that no sin or evil will be tolerated while Christ reigns on Earth, and then likewise eternally thereafter. Did that mean that free-will will be taken away, or did it mean there would be zero-tolerance retribution for sin?

Re: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/03/are-we-angry-atheists.html

Jag_Levak — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 02:10:52 -0000

Ana_v wrote: "are you implying, jimvj, that first-hand knowledge sources are necessary to establish the historicity of a person?"

There are a great many factors which influence the weight it is reasonable to accord a testimony. First hand knowledge is a large factor, but it would not diminish the force of the testimony very much if the information came from official records, or was gleaned from multiple eyewitness accounts which were then checked against each other for consistency. Anonymous contemporary sources get significantly less weight. Anonymous sources decades after the events get a great deal less, and so on. But even with flimsy testimony, it would not be unreasonable to provisionally accept it in cases of no great importance or significance.

In the matter of the existence of Jesus, the extra-Biblical evidence we have is very weak, but probably good enough to establish that there were people named Jesus in that general time and region. Josephus mentions several Jesuses--such as the sailor who led a small uprising or "woe to Jerusalem" Jesus who was brought before Pilate, and dismissed as a lunatic.

So the question is, what would count as an actual Jesus? Would a composite Jesus with biographical information drawn from several real people count? How about if we found a carpenter Jesus who went to a wedding where loaves and fishes were served? Would that be good enough?

I think for most Christians, they are not interested in establishing the reality of ordinary nobodies named Jesus. The Jesus they care about is the one vividly described in the Bible, in which case what he is reputed to have done becomes part of the information that identifies who he was.

In that context, the remarkable thing about the hearsay accounts we have isn't the hearsay quality of those accounts. It is the fact that those are the *only* accounts we have. The Bible describes an astounding Jesus, a miracle worker, a publicity sensation, a leader with far-reaching fame, swarmed by adoring multitudes, a revolutionary, a power-challenging Jesus who alarmed officials and priests. If that Jesus existed, then we should expect he had an immense fan base, many detractors and enemies, and some sort of effort made to keep tabs on him and record his activities, particularly the amazing ones and the worrisome ones.

For this Jesus, the most damaging part of the historical record is not the part we have, it's the part we cannot find. From his fans, from his detractors, from all the scribes and chroniclers of the region, from the public records, from contemporaries, from his own entourage, what is it that we find in the way of any document, any letter, any souvenir, any preserved and venerated artifact from the life of this allegedly actual Jesus? If he was real, then the events of his ministry should have generated reams of documents and cartloads of evidence, at least some of which would have been zealously protected by his devotees. But what we have instead is a yawning cavernous nothing. Not a single scribble of writing concerning anything he ever did, written by anyone at all throughout his entire life. Not so much as a crumb of physical evidence. Zip.

And so we are left with two possibilities. Either a god came to this planet and performed miracles to astound the locals and make a great impression on them, and then after his departure, every trace of evidence that he was ever here was utterly obliterated in a similarly miraculous fashion, or, possibility two: this is simply one more completely ordinary case of humans spinning out yarns, tall tales, legends and myths, just like we've seen in a zillion other cases. Christians can, of course, claim that it is the first account which is the factual one. What they can't do is argue it is the more reasonable one.

Re: Debunking Christianity: A Dialog With A Good Christian Friend

Jag_Levak — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 13:27:00 -0000

Joanie wrote: "The concept of free-will is everywhere in the Bible - from Genesis to Revelation. If you would prefer, don't use the term free-will: substitute "choice". God gave us the ability to choose good or evil.

Was it his desire that some of us choose evil, or was it his desire than none of us choose evil? If evil displeases God, why would he deliberately build into humans the capacity to fail and go wrong?

[>J] "God allows death, because He takes evil (and the pain and suffering resulting from it) very very seriously, and eventually, it must be judged."

If God is the author of everything, then who, ultimately, was the author of evil?

[>J] "It cannot be allowed to continue forever."

How will it be defeated if free will is the cause of it? Will free will be destroyed along with evil?

[>J] "Although three in one is a concept currently beyond our understanding, there are other instances in the New Testament where the three are shown individually, and yet are united as one in purpose."

Even without understanding the three-in-one concept, it appears to create problems when combined with the putative attribute of perfection. If the three are individually perfect, then either they are identical (in which case you have a double redundancy) or they are different (in which case there must be various forms of perfection). If it is argued the perfection of God is only achieved when the three are combined, then that would imply there is something intrinsic to the nature of perfection which requires that it be fragmented into exactly three divisions.

Perfection would appear also to be a problem for choice. In order for God to have been able to make any choice, there would have had to have been a point at which God was undecided, and then he would have had to make the transition from undecided to decided. An undecided god and a god which changes would not typically be characterized as eternally perfect. So has God never made a choice or decision in his entire existence? If not, how can this also be the God who judges? Were all the judgements of God pre-scripted from the beginning of time?

Which brings us to the problem of choice and omniscience. If God has perfect knowledge of everything that will happen, then how can he, or anyone, do other than what he knows perfectly that we will all do? If God has the capacity of choice, somehow, then he would have been able to perfectly foresee not only how this universe would play out, but any alternative universe he could have created as well--right down to the smallest detail. So when he chose to create this universe, he simultaneously chose everything that would happen in it. All your actions would thus have been selected by God and your only real choice would be to do exactly what he created you to do with his absolute irresistable foreknowledge of exactly what you would do. The only way you can have any responsibility for your actions whatsoever is if you diminish your god's power to choose, or diminish the perfection of his foreknowledge.

Or looking at it a different way, your choices are either completely determined, or they are not. If you could take any decision you've ever made, run the clock back to just prior to that decision, and then let the clock run forward again, there are only two possibilities. Either you will necessarily make the exact same choice every time, no matter how many times you run the clock back and replay it--in which case, it is hard to see how that can be distinguished from absolute determinism--or there will be the possibility that you will choose differently on at least one replaying. Since everything about the starting conditions, including both you and the environment, would be utterly identical at the beginning of each replaying, then to arrive at a different outcome, the deciding factor would have to be some seemingly random agent which has nothing to do with you. The implication is that your god will either judge you and hold you accountable for decisions you had no capacity to avoid, or he will judge you because your decisions included a random element you had absolutely no control over. That would seem unfair if he has the capacity to do otherwise, but perhaps that is not within his power.

[>J] "Yes, the Bible was written by men (inspired by God), but if you get a red letter edition, you will be able to read in red, the direct quotations of Jesus Christ."

Or at least, those are the words placed into the mouth of the Christ character by the men who authored these stories. It remains to be established that they are actual quotes.

[>J] "There are also direct quotations where God spoke to people in the Old Testament. God did provide "physical proof" of Himself, when he sent His Son to live among us, so that we could know we could relate to Him."

And then he eradicated all physical proof of that physical proof.

[>J] "In the New Testament those who searched the Scriptures to verify whether Jesus was indeed the promised Messiah, rather than just blindly accepting what they were told were referred to as "more excellent."

And those who search reality for verification are less excellent. Doomed to hell, in fact.

[>J] "You are right that Luke was not an eyewitness. But he was a physician, a man who wanted to make sure that people got their facts straight, so he interviewed eyewitnesses and wrote down their first-hand accounts of Jesus' life."

Or so the story goes. Assuming the story was even written by Luke--which we don't know.

[>J] "The other three (Matthew, Mark, and John) were eyewitnesses."

All four gospels are anonymous, and for some, we can't even determine the original language. The only thing we have in the way of attribution is church tradition. And they are clearly not independent eyewitness accounts because they share some passages almost verbatim. But even if you sweep those problems under the rug, what you have are a collection of remarkable stories which are either true--in which case we should be finding independent verification in abundance--or they are stories with exaggerations, embellishments, fabrications, mistakes, delusions, or any of the countless other normal ways humans everywhere and at all times have included false elements in their amazing stories. Until that independent verification is found, the normal mundane explanation would appear to be the most likely.

Re: Debunking Christianity: A Dialog With A Good Christian Friend

Jag_Levak — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 20:43:37 -0000

JoeBaron1977 wrote "First of all I agree with the moral frustration and ethical problems that I posted."

So you have decided to let your faith beliefs overrule your moral sensibilities?

[JB] I don't doubt that what I put can be misunderstood.

I think the larger problem for you is that it can be understood perfectly.

[JB] It would take all day to point out the declaration of his character in scripture as being defined as gracious, compassionate, loving, etc. His goodness is a constant characteristic of God throughout the scriptures.

And this would be the same good and loving god that ordained wars and tribal exterminations, blessed the dashing of little ones, eradicated cities, abused his faithful servant Job and wiped out his family for sport, commanded Abraham to slay his son, and so on all the way back to his flooding of the entire planet? This is the same god who lovingly dropped the souls of millions of tortured and brutally killed Jews into an infinitely worse neverending pit of torture? Of what use to us is such love? And what, exactly, would this abomination of a god have to do before you would concede "okay, that is not good"? If he has "defined" himself as good in Scripture, does that mean that he can commit whatever fiendish atrocities he pleases, and you would still be required to praise him and proclaim him good no matter what? Isn't that an outright violation of every meaning we normally ascribe to the word "good"?

[JB] "That there is evil and sin in the world, does not mean that a holy God delights in it."

It doesn't exactly rule out that possibility either. If he has the capacity to oppose it, then at the very least, he permits others to suffer cruelly for the sake of something he wants.

[JB] That is a perversion of what scripture says about his character (which is by the way, the ONLY way we know who God is).

So what you are saying is that when we look around us, there is nothing in reality that reveals anything about the nature of this god. Or even its existence? As much as you depend on them, I take it you are betting everything that there is no possibility for error to creep into those scriptures.

[JB] "scripture shows how Jesus Christ, the God-man was brutally murdered and endured a suffering far worse than rape."

Um, excuse me, but as I recall, he not only volunteered to take that dirt nap for a few hours, but that was supposedly integral to his own idiotic plan from the beginning of time. If this powerful god chose to gratify himself by abusing himself, I would say that is not even in the same category with brutal rapes inflicted on helpless victims. But even if the game is just to compare one quantity of suffering against another, I would say the suffering that Jesus allegedly experienced would be less than microscopic compared to the shrieking agonies of billions writhing in God's funhouse torture den of infinite punishment. I know you say there is nothing sadistic in the nature of your god (by his own definition of himself), but if inflicting uninterrupted unendurable agony on the likes of Gandhi and Anne Frank, forever and ever, does not qualify as sadistic, it simply demands the question: What would?

Re: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/03/are-we-angry-atheists.html

Jag_Levak — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 12:48:12 -0000

Ana_v wrote: I repeat, the claim that Jesus existed is not extraordinary. The claims about what he did ARE extraordinary.

The existence of obscure, ordinary-human Jesuses back then is not in dispute. Nobody claims they did not exist. And with the possible exception of you, nobody cares that they did exist.

[A_v] And by Jesus I am referring to a Palestinian Jewish teacher, of humble social class, living in the early decades of the 1st century who gathered a following and went around preaching about the Kingdom of God. He died by crucifixion around 30AD by decree of Pilate.

The Pilate story in the Bible makes no legal sense whatsoever, and is totally inconsistent with what we know of Pilate, but if you want to keep that part of the story, then you either need to include the attribute of fame and controversy on which it depends so heavily (in which case, there is the major problem of the silence of contemporaries) or you have to give Pilate some other reason to kill an obscure nobody. Perhaps the humble preacher committed some crime. Or maybe Pilate executed someone else with the same or similar name, and the two got conflated.

But what you are attempting to do is salvage some scrap of Bible-Jesus by bending, warping, shaving, and shoehorning the account given in the Bible to turn that Jesus into a common nothing Jesus that could be easily missed by virtually everyone. The part I don't understand is why. You aren't defending a Jesus of any relevance to Christianity, and that isn't the Jesus that any of the mythicists are contending against. If you want to stake out that position, knock yourself out, but what you've got there is something irrelevant to both sides of the main debate.

[A_v] The point is that it is nonetheless important to get our understanding of world history straight.

You aren't making a case for a historical Christ. You are making a case for the possibility of an ordinary someone by the same or similar name who was totally unnoticed by history, and who might have been later embellished into the Christ of the Bible. The strength of your argument depends, not on evidence (because there is none), but on plausibility, which you only achieve by stripping Bible Jesus of every attribute that Christians care about.

[A_v] It is silly to view Christianity as not having had a central founder

You mean because we have never had a case of a fictional character being later mistaken for an actual someone? (Like, say, William Tell?)

[A_v] to disregard the issue of his historicity as unimportant is naive thinking.

To disregard the most important defining attributes of the character in order to defend the mere possibility of an actual someone who is almost entirely different in all important respects seems like pointless thinking.

[A_v] We have sufficient evidence to establish the existence of the person Jesus based on the gospels,

Which read like mystery plays, including passages like Jesus alone in Gesthemane and flying around with Satan--episodes which had no witnesses.

[A_v] Pauline excerpts,

Nothing in Paul requires a corporeal Christ.

[A_v] later Christian sources (church fathers)

In other words, magical-thinking true-believers who weren't there, and who openly embrace lying, fraud, and forgery to advance their holy cause. Not exactly top marks for credibility.

[A_v] and non-Christian sources including but not limited to Josephus, Tacitus, Celsus, Pliny the Younger,

Ie. a pittance of non-contemporary hearsay references which undoubtedly include some quantity of forgery and in all cases could easily have derived their information from Christian sources.

[A_v] If your mentality is that non-contemporary writings (i.e. writings compiled AFTER the existence of the person they report) or that hearsay (writings that report a person not known first-hand by the author) are NOT sufficient to establish the historicity of an individual, then at least explain on what basis you make that judgment.

Bible Jesus is not an ordinary case, so the objections are also particular. They are not being advanced as general principles to be applied to generic individuals.

[A_v] I also notice a bait-and-switch tactic. Skeptics talking about there not being evidence for Jesus' existence/evidence for Jesus' existence being weak/ Jesus' existence is myth. Someone comes along to address this, and then the skeptic switches over to the topic of Jesus' miracles.

The skeptics are addressing Bible Jesus. You're the one trying to make it about ho-hum nothing Jesus. It's not the skeptics who are pulling a switch.

[A_v] Thing is, his existence is considered historical.

That used to be the case for William Tell too. But his legend didn't have a powerful religion built up around it to protect it, with millions of people heavily invested in its truth.

[A_v] Please, do consider reading through these articles on the existence of Jesus. They comprehensively document the various references to Jesus, and furthermore, anticipate the possible objections that could be raised by the skeptic, and answer accordingly.

What those evidences demonstrate is that there were people who believed there was a corporeal Christ by the end of the first century. Even the most ardent mythicist grants that outright. And if you want to argue that the Jesus stories began with a tiny kernel of truth and were later spun up into a full-blown myth with magical embellishments, I think you could even get a number of mythicists to grant the plausibility of that as well. But whether it started with a myth and was then placed into a historical setting, or started with a mundane story which then grew into a myth, either way results in Bible Jesus being overwhelmingly the result of myth-making. All you are fighting for is one commonplace form of myth-making over all the others.

Re: Debunking Christianity: How Science Leads to Naturalism (At Least For Me)

Jag_Levak — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 22:40:21 -0000

If our universe had been initiated by some incomprehensibly weird trans-dimensional space alien, or perhaps a team of them, and they had no plan or notion that we would would come along billions of years later, would that still count as a miraculous creation? If we wind up having to scrap the Big Bang theory, as has happened to prominent theories in science from time to time, will that pose any problem for your notion of a god, or will you simply switch to the new model, hail it as a miracle, and proffer that as evidence of a god? Is it only the fact that we don't know how the stuff of the universe came into being that makes it miraculous? In other words, is anything we don't understand miraculous, or is the miraculous stuff a subset of the things we don't understand? If it is a subset, how do we distinguish a miraculous something we don't understand from a non-miraculous something we don't understand?

Re: Debunking Christianity: How Science Leads to Naturalism (At Least For Me)

Jag_Levak — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 01:50:01 -0000

Ana_v wrote: "If atheists will define science and history as disciplines that necessarily exclude supernatural considerations, then, they set themselves up to not be (or at least, very likely to not be) convinced of the supernatural. They impose on themselves a very contrived method for deciding whether the supernatural exists or not."

The process of science is an attempt to bring some discipline to our human tendency towards woolly thinking. Basically it's just an attempt to use logic to root out and minimize error. Science does not include supernatural considerations because science makes use of regularities and relationships in nature in order to arrive at probabilities. It's nothing against supernaturalism. It's just that science can only work with phenomena which have properties we can use as a basis for predictions. Anything we can't observe, anything we can't test, anything which exhibits no pattern which can be generalized cannot be included in scientific considerations because no one has thought of any practical way to do so. And of course, supernaturalism would be among the things science currently cannot study.

I wouldn't call science a contrived method, because it isn't so much that we fabricated or engineered it to work the way it does as it is that the realities we deal with constrain us to practice it the way we do. But the principles are pretty commonsensical. We assume there is a truth, and we acknowledge that we have no infallible conduit to this truth, but we observe there are patterns in nature which operate with enough consistency to give us some predictive power. And then we exploit that predictive power to do tests and arrive at probabilities--the assumption being that a string of successful predictions would be highly improbable if the predictions were being generated by a model which does not correspond to reality. It's kind of like navigating around a strange city using a road map. If you are working from a map for the wrong city, you'll probably find that out pretty quickly.

As to conclusions about supernaturalism, it would go too far to say that science proves that supernaturalism is impossible, or confirms that it doesn't exist anywhere. But in all the cases where we have arrived at models with high predictive success, what we can say is that if there are any elements at work which we don't know about or have failed to take into account, then they are probably not responsible for the high rate of predictive success, though they could be responsible for some portion of the residue of predictive error. So the higher the predictive success, the less room there is for unknown or unexpected elements.

Over the history of science, we've been able to fill in a lot of the areas which were previously mysterious, and in shrinking the shadows, sometimes older superstitious notions got squeezed out. As we've built a better-performing model of reality, the miracle claims have had a tendency to shrink, and some people don't think that's purely coincidental. We don't have planetary floods, the sun traversing backwards in the sky, parting seas, or rivers turning into blood any more. Miracles these days tend to be more on the order of relief from neck pain, or a bearded-face tortilla burn. However, as the predictive power and precision of science advances, so too does our ability to detect any anomalies. If we advance fast enough, maybe we'll get the chance to detect something which might have been a miracle before they all shrink away to nothing.

Re: Debunking Christianity: How Science Leads to Naturalism (At Least For Me)

Jag_Levak — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 16:49:47 -0000

Ana_v wrote: ... within your reply to me you said: "I wouldn't call science a contrived method..." I wouldn't either - the problem is not science, nor do I mean to suggest that it is. I suggested the problem is the enormous restrictions the atheist set upon himself (IF) he in ABSOLUTE terms, eliminates science and history as possible means for discovering the supernatural.

Those restrictions are inherent in the way we do science. The methods of science do provide for the detection of predictive error--which we use as an indicator that there is something going on that we do not understand. But when we discover there is something awry, there is nothing in that which tells us whether we failed to understand some principle correctly, whether we failed to include some normal natural element, or whether we failed to include something which has no natural cause.

[Ana_v] Does the atheist view science as effectively ruling out ANY possibility for the supernatural to be considered in scientific questions? Or does the atheist view science as principally seeking out natural explanations, while yet retaining the capacity to at least point to, or hint at, a supernatural cause if the studied phenomenon were such that it would warrant it?

Science was only set up to study that which is natural and orderly (in the sense of having consistent properties). The only way to scientifically investigate a putative case of the supernatural is to assume from the outset that it can be studied and can be understood--which is, in effect, to treat it as if it is not supernatural. So, with caveats, the answer to your question is "both". It is currently impossible as a practical matter to include considerations of the supernatural in science. (That doesn't necessarily mean that it would be impossible in principle for supernaturalism to be included in some fundamentally different sort of science--but we have no idea how that could be done, or even if it could be done.) And yes, in a way you could say that science could detect an anomaly due to a supernatural intrusion, if one occurred, because finding anomalies is what it's set up for. Partly, that's to uncover errors of understanding, but it likewise exposes errors due to gaps in knowledge. But even if we find such an anomaly, there is no scientific way to distinguish that which is natural-but-unknown from something supernatural. But anything deemed supernatural would be inaccessible and outside of our powers to investigate and understand, so there is little prospect for it becoming a field of study. Indeed, at present, it is only an obstacle to study. If you call something magic, that is basically taking the position that any attempt to understand it scientifically will be doomed to failure.

[Ana_v] The view of history: Does the atheist view historical inquiry as by default ruling out absolutely ANY supernatural events from conclusions drawn by the inquiry?

If you are attempting a history which is confined to reality (you can have fictional histories), then you can include *claims* of the supernatural, but there is no way for science to weigh in on the side of the supernatural explanation as being the most probable (because the methods of determining probability wouldn't apply), so the historian who wishes to minimize the chances of error will tell the story of the people who made the claims, rather than advance the claims as true.

[Ana_v] Or does the atheist view historical inquiry as welcoming EVEN supernatural events in its conclusions, if the evidence were to lead to such?

With the tools we have for dealing with evidence, evidence cannot lead to a supernatural conclusion. If we find no evidence pointing to known causes, that would be suggestive of a gap, and that's the most likely place for any supernatural effect to be located, if any exist. But gaps may conceal many totally-natural phenomena, so any supernatural conclusion would require sufficient knowledge of the unknown to be able to rule out all natural explanations, including any we might not have imagined yet.

[Ana_v ]So to summarize: I do not think science or history get in the way of seeking out whether or not the supernatural exists.

I would agree. They do not get in the way or pose any obstacle to such seeking. They are merely completely unhelpful towards that objective.

[Ana_v] Hope this clarifies my point!

I think I understand the distinction you are making, and yeah, even if there isn't much practical difference between currently impossible and impossible in theory, it's probably worth keeping mindful of the difference, since only one of them is sure never to change.

Re: Debunking Christianity: How Science Leads to Naturalism (At Least For Me)

Jag_Levak — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 21:52:44 -0000

Ana_v wrote:... if [John's view] is that the tools of science and history are such, that they cannot be what lead us to the affirmative answer to the question " Does the supernatural exist" even if it is true (notice I say IF) that the supernatural exists, then **the corollary**, to that view is, that science and history cannot be what lead us to the negative answer, to the question "Does the supernatural exist".

In general terms, I believe that is correct. I'm not aware of any scientific way to determine the nature of that which lies outside of the purview of science. However, in specific cases, it might be a different story. If something really odd happened, and it was claimed to be the result of some supernatural cause, then we would have no way to scientifically consider the supernatural explanation when investigating the odd occurrence, so there would be no way to arrive at a scientific affirmation of that claim. But on the other hand, if investigation revealed the seemingly odd thing to be something which could be accounted for and duplicated by totally ordinary natural processes, then we would conclude that was the most likely explanation, which would, effectively, be a negative conclusion for the supernatural explanation. The same would be true for any hypothesis which was not testable. We would not be able to scientifically consider it, but if we found a sufficiently robust alternate explanation, then we would discount the untestable model and sweep it out along with all the testable hypotheses which failed or did not perform as well. This would not establish that the supernatural does not exist. but it would render it superfluous for the given phenomenon under consideration. Put another way, if science were run like a contest, then only testable hypotheses would be eligible to win, but all hypotheses would be eligible to "lose" where "losing" simply means not being selected as the winner.

Re: Debunking Christianity: How Science Leads to Naturalism (At Least For Me)

Jag_Levak — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 15:46:49 -0000

[Ana_v] ...we should look at science as retaining the capability of hinting at the supernatural if the phenomenon under consideration warrants it

What science primarily gives us is a way to identify which testable ideas we come up with are most likely to be mistaken, so that we can modify or discard them. It doesn't generate the ideas, it doesn't offer suggestions, or provide hints. That part is up to us, and ideas can come from imagination, hunches, gut feelings, and some have even credited dreams or divine inspiration. Doesn't matter where the idea comes from. So long as it is objectively testable, it can be evaluated scientifically.

By providing error detection, science can be useful for finding holes in our understanding, and you could characterize that as a "hint" but it is still up to us to characterize the nature of that hole in our understanding. If there was a certain pair of dice which always rolled 12, we would first suspect it was not fair dice. But if we carefully checked the shape and balance, and could find nothing out of the ordinary, we would have an unexplained statistical anomaly which resulted in highly improbable, but consistent results. This would be a set of normal looking physical events which, only collectively, would point to a hole in our understanding. Without being able to find a reason, a supernatural cause could not be ruled out, but most of us would not leap to that characterization first because it's the sort of small anomaly which could still be within the realm of ingenious human trickery. But it might be a different story if you rolled a pair of dice and they merged and turned into an adult flamingo, and a crowd of people and video cameras all saw and recorded the same thing. Thoughts of the supernatural would probably spring to mind more readily in a situation like that, but those thoughts would not be provided by, or hinted at, by science. Science would be like an evaluation engine sitting there waiting for someone to feed it a testable hypothesis, but if no one can think up a testable hypothesis that might account for the transformation, that would simply leave the evaluation engine with nothing to do.

[Ana_v] ...the issue of probability, meaning : probability that every miracle claim, past and present, are *without exception* false claims VS probability that at least, even one, is true. Those who believe miracles are fiction, whether they realize or not, side with the former as being more probable. Those of us who believe miracles as not fiction, side with the latter as being more probable.

The fuzzy part is what you mean by false miracle claim. If someone described a highly unlikely-sounding event, and they say they believed it was a miracle, would that count as a false claim if it turned out the unlikely-sounding event did occur exactly as described (but, say, a natural explanation was ultimately found) and the person did, in fact, believe it was a miracle? (I would score that claimant truthful.) If what you mean is that against the billions of claims of miracles which have been made by people down through the centuries, I believe that exactly zero of them were prompted by an actual miracle, then yes, I would call that a fair assessment of my view.

Re: Debunking Christianity: A Dialog With A Good Christian Friend

Jag_Levak — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 03:22:56 -0000

Joanie wrote: God made a way so that no one would have to suffer forever. He suffered in your place, so that you don't have to.

It would appear your god favors payment in the currency of suffering. And somehow, paying himself was how he balanced the ledger. I wonder what use for suffering a god could have. Or any form of currency for that matter.

[J] Hell is a place without the presence of God, and the lack of all He created with which to bless us.

That would appear to be a description of where I am now. Or at least, I am not detecting any gods or god artifacts here. Have you actually been to hell, or talked with anyone who has? It's just that you seem pretty confident of your information about the place.

[J] People can choose God and all His blessings, or they can reject Him and His blessings.

Can you believe anything at all merely by saying "I believe"? Is no notion so absurd that you would not be able to convince yourself of its truth?

[J] He will respect our choice.

And if my choice is to cease to exist entirely?

Re: Debunking Christianity: Unbelief by Default and Selective Credulity

Jag_Levak — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:53:31 -0000

Kevin wrote: "Why is it that the majority of commenters on this blog believe that the only reasonable explanation for anyone to believe in God ... is because they haven’t thought it through and given the evidence a proper treatment? Do you honestly believe that every Christian on the planet believes because they’re deluded and unthinking, stupid and simple-minded?

I do not. I think most Christians believe because they were brought up to believe, and questions of evidence and reason are simply not considerations for them, because with faith, all things can be accepted as possible. It is only the ones who claim that their belief is based on evidence and reason who I believe to be either mistaken, or in possession of some sort of special private evidence which they cannot produce for anyone else. Because I've seen all the traditional so-called arguments for God, and I can see they are bootstrap, post-hoc apologetics (primarily aimed at reassuring believers) which are rationally insufficient unless one accepts God-friendly premises which have not been objectively established.

[K] I’ve thought through the issues, I’ve weighed the evidence, and I find a belief in the Christian God more likely than a universe without a God.

All calculations of probability rest on a set of assumptions. Get any assumption wrong, and the calculation will go wrong.

[K] Would it be more moral of me if I truly believed that I had the cure to cancer to hide it from everyone who I came in contact with because I was afraid I might offend someone?

Sincerity of belief is not enough. There are many people who have mistakenly believed they've found cures, some of which were not only useless, but injurious. If you believed you had a cure for cancer, the moral thing to do would be to submit it to scientific peer review, and let it prove itself robust in an environment of double-blind testing and impartial evaluation.

Re: Debunking Christianity: Unbelief by Default and Selective Credulity

Jag_Levak — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 15:08:15 -0000

Kevin wrote: People on this blog seem to lump all beliefs in the supernatural into one place.

Yes. We call it "supernaturalism".

[K] when assuming supernatural divine will ...

You do see that there is a step missing there already, don't you?

[K] ... the fact that the universe is predictable and testable and repeatable and able to be studied and learned through science implies monotheism

I think it implies that the things that we observe exist with properties that we can observe.

[K] as multiple gods participating in creative acts would likely cause a chaotic universe unable to be studied through the scientific method.

Just as teams of designers can only produce chaotic automobiles.

[K] A single divine will causes a more predictable and repeatable universe than several divine wills.

Let's go ahead and make that stronger, and have a look at the structure of the logic involved.

1) If single divine will, then predictable and repeatable universe exactly as we see
2) predictable and repeatable universe exactly as we see
Therefore: single divine will

There are only two problems with that argument. First, premise one remains undemonstrated, and second, the argument isn't valid. That would be an argument of the same form as

1) If I own a 1932 Rolls Royce Phaeton Roadster, then I am a car owner.
2) I am a car owner
Therefore, I own a 1932 Rolls Royce Phaeton Roadster

Premise 1 and 2 are true, but the conclusion is false. That can't happen with a valid argument.

[K] between the three monotheisms, Christianity is the only one where God makes the effort to correct the mistakes

Mistakes?

[K] (i.e. bring mankind back into a suitable place to dwell with God for eternity).

For what purpose?

[K] In Judaism and Islam, it is up to the believer to work for salvation, in Christianity Jesus’ death works for salvation.

Was that a real death or a pretend death?

[K] So, if we’re talking about religion, Christianity seems the most reasonable.

A tricephalous spirit god amputates one of its non-corporeal heads, reworks it into a physical primate form, sends it to a speck planet be killed by other primates, so that, by this, it can be appeased and conditionally dispense with its original plan to inflict neverending torture on some non-corporeal attachment appended to these primates. I think we must be using different definitions for the word 'reasonable'.

Re: Debunking Christianity: Unbelief by Default and Selective Credulity

Jag_Levak — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 18:01:58 -0000

Kevin wrote: Well, Jag, I will rest peacefully in my belief knowing that Christianity has withstood the attacks of far more brilliant minds than a commenter on some atheist's blog...

I readily grant that Christian belief can be utterly impregnable to reason. Reason and faith are mutually incompatible foundations for belief. Even some Christians used to acknowledge that.

[K] ...who thinks that after 2000 years we as a race have just now in this moment in history become enlightened enough to discard not only Christianity but any belief in something that cannot be quantitatively proven by the scientific method,

I think it is time to call beliefs which have no scientific support exactly what they are.

[K] (see, I can throw the insults around too when civility breaks down.)

I did not see the insult.

Re: Debunking Christianity: How Science Leads to Naturalism (At Least For Me)

Jag_Levak — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:27:52 -0000

Ana_v wrote: if the atheist gets rid of science and history as possible means for assessing the reported miraculous, what means does HE leave for himself to use?

You're trying to make this into an atheist thing and it's really not. A Christian doing good science would be asking the same questions: "What is the most likely cause of reported oddity X? What would be the implications of a given theory of that cause? How can those implications be tested?" etc. A miracle would not be very miraculous if it were natural and probable--the very things that science is set up to test for. It is not the fault of atheists that they have no way to warp science so that improbable miracles can become the most probable explanation. Christians have no way to do it either. If a miracle occurred, science would be useless for confirming that. The most it could do is rule out all the naturalistic alternatives we could think of.

The second part of your question is going to vary according to who you ask, but I'll try to venture what I think is a generic reasonable position. If there is no scientific way to confirm a miracle, does that mean that nothing can count as objective evidence for a miracle? No. It only means a scientific analysis of the evidence will be inconclusive. But strictly speaking, evidence is anything which we grant as useful in the formation of a conclusion, and not even atheists require a rigorously tested scientific model for every conclusion and belief they hold. Atheists overwhelmingly believe that life arose out of complex organic chemistry, even though we have not yet come up with a comprehensive testable physical model of how it *could* have happened. For that matter, we have no real model for how time passes, how the structure of space expands, how light propagates through a vacuum, how gravity works, how anti-gravity works, and there is a lot about the essential nature of matter and energy that remains theoretical but as yet untestable. We know more than we used to, and we assume we will continue to learn, but we simply accept them as realities while we work on trying to figure them out.

So, what would count as evidence of the supernatural through miracles? First, the evidence needs to be objective and preferably physical--capable of being apprehended by anyone. Second, the miracle account needs to be something for which no natural account is sufficient. And third, if the miracle is to be offered as evidence of a sentient supernatural, then something about the nature or setting of the miracle needs to have a clear communicative quality. One lotto player finally winning after playing and praying for years to win wouldn't count. Testimony from a former drug addict who claims to have witnessed a miracle when he was down and out and strung out on drugs wouldn't count. But a faith healing which restored an amputees legs on camera and in front of non-believer witnesses, with before and after medical assessment and before and after fingerprint identification would be pretty darn good. And Jesus appearing in the clouds, striding across the sky over major cities, accompanied by trumpeting angels would be almost irresistibly compelling for nearly all atheists. But even in a dramatic case like that, scientific analysis would still be useless.

[Ana_v] John thinks history doesn’t have the tools to properly assess the miraculous claims.

History is a more difficult case. Again, physical evidence, even old and deteriorated, would be best. But most miracles are the sort which would not be expected to leave evidence. And without that, we are basically left with stories and testimony, with all the problems that entails. Where the stories are ambiguous, or conflicting, or there is reason to doubt the reliability of the author, or the authenticity of the writings, there are just too many ordinary ways to account for the claims to be able to hold the door open for a possible actual miracle being behind them. I don't know how testimony alone could ever justify the conclusion that an actual miracle is more probable than all the myriad ways testimony can be defective.

[Ana_v] So I will repeat my point: the historical approach can be applied to the reported [miraculous or otherwise] events of a religious text to draw conclusions about them.

Some conclusions, yes.

[Ana_v] If a particular atheist holds to this view: “ I would have no problem believing in the miraculous, if I were to be shown objective evidence for the miraculous” (note the emphasis) And SIMULTANEOUSLY holds to this view : “ Neither science nor history are capable of assessing the validity of a miraculous claim”
THAT atheist, is living a contradiction in his head.

I don't think so. Objective evidence can exist and can be convincing even in the absence of scientific or historical analysis. And it's not at all difficult to think of extreme cases of remarkable evidence which would convince your average atheist. The part that's hard to nail down is what, exactly, would be the weakest and least compelling evidence which the atheist would still find convincing. For that, I think even most atheists themselves wouldn't know the answer.

[Ana_v] Scientific and historical evidence would count as objective evidence.

Yes, but not the only forms of evidence.

[Ana_v]And on the one hand, the atheist is asking for objective evidence (scientific/historical).

Well, sort of. Where science and history are concerned, atheists are actually lowering the bar and asking for something less than evidence of miracles. All they are asking for there is anomalies which don't have normal, natural explanations in order to locate possible candidate events which *could* have been due to miracles. If there are no events which can clear even that lower bar, then there is no need to consider whether they could have been actual miracles.

[Ana_v] On the OTHER hand, he is saying that objective evidence for the miraculous CANNOT be provided by science and history, because science and history don’t have the “tools” to do that.

Correct. There can be a scientific analysis of evidence, and that analysis can itself be evidence, but basically all science does is test implications. The hypothesis is structured into the form If A, then B where B is some real world implication, and then we check the real world to see if B matches what we find. The result is either "the implication is confirmed" (conclusion: A is possibly true, and even probably true if B is remarkable and distinctive enough) or "the implication is not confirmed" meaning A is probably wrong. I don't know how either of those conclusions could ever be made into evidence for a miracle.

[Ana_v] An atheist can't have it both ways. Such an atheist’s view, can be summarized in one sentence: “ I’ll believe in the miraculous if you can provide me with objective evidence of the miraculous, but realize objective evidence for such cannot come in the form of science and history.”

Yes. That sounds like a fair summary to me. And it would be a contradiction if objective evidence were the same as science and history, or if it could only come from scientific or historic analysis, but that isn't the case.

Re: A little more sentience: Love, and how Atheists take risks too

Jag_Levak — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 12:03:10 -0000

I've certainly known atheists who did not wish to undertake children while they were in tight financial straits out of concern they would be unable to provide a satisfactory level of support and security. It's not quite the same as considerations of general evil in the world, but it's probably at least as pertinent to the lives their own children would live.

Personally, I think human population growth will have to be voluntarily restrained or our numbers will be restrained for us, by much more unpleasant involuntary means. In that context, childlessness could be seen as a gift to the living on this small planet, so that might also count as a moral consideration.

But doesn't your question apply with much greater force to hellfire Christians? As I understand it, such people believe it would be possible to wind up in heaven while a kind and loving but unbelieving child of theirs gets condemned to an eternity in hell. Could the risk of any brief earthly miseries compare to that?

And I wonder what happens to a mother's assurance of perfect bliss if every second she spends in heaven, she knows her beloved child is screaming and writhing in searing, unendurable agony. As the centuries pile up into the billions and trillions, could such a mother not wonder to herself, even once, 'what good is served by this?'

Re: A little more sentience: Love, and how Atheists take risks too

Jag_Levak — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:37:32 -0000

Most of the atheist arguments I've seen for the immorality of the God character rest either on an evaluation of the deeds ascribed to this god in the Bible, or they use the problem of evil to create a disjunction between omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, such that at least one of those attributes has to be jettisoned. If you are trying to draw an analogy to atheists, then yes, atheists making the best choices they can given their limited knowledge and power does not pose any essential contradiction to their goodness. Likewise, the morality of God could also be preserved if he meant well, but reached imperfect decisions because of the inherent limitations in his power and/or knowledge. Was that what you were trying to establish with this analogy? Because that would appear to be an outright concession to the disjunction argument.